{"id":191790,"date":"2022-11-02T07:30:42","date_gmt":"2022-11-02T11:30:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/today.uconn.edu\/?p=191790"},"modified":"2022-12-02T15:43:15","modified_gmt":"2022-12-02T20:43:15","slug":"how-the-threat-of-taxpayer-funded-abortion-is-being-used-to-mobilize-conservative-religious-voters","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/today.uconn.edu\/2022\/11\/how-the-threat-of-taxpayer-funded-abortion-is-being-used-to-mobilize-conservative-religious-voters\/","title":{"rendered":"How the Threat of ‘Taxpayer-Funded Abortion’ is Being Used to Mobilize Conservative Religious Voters"},"content":{"rendered":"

Following the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s ruling in\u00a0Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization<\/a>\u00a0and the wave of\u00a0state-level abortion bans<\/a>\u00a0that followed, it might appear that anti-abortion activists could declare victory and go home.<\/p>\n

However, from their perspective, a major threat still looms: Their tax dollars may be used to fund abortion in states where abortion is legal.<\/p>\n

As it currently stands, several policies are in place that\u00a0almost entirely prevent<\/a>\u00a0federal funds<\/a>\u00a0from being used to directly pay for abortion services. Since 1976, the Hyde Amendment has prohibited the public funding of abortion through Medicaid except in rare exceptions. In the years since, \u201cHyde-like restrictions<\/a>\u201d have been added to other federal healthcare programs, as well as to\u00a0private insurance plans<\/a>\u00a0purchased through the health insurance exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act.<\/p>\n

There are also restrictions on federal funds granted to organizations that provide reproductive healthcare for low-income women, like Planned Parenthood, such that these funds\u00a0cannot be used for abortion services<\/a>. Even so, anti-abortion activists insist that because money is fungible, any federal support for organizations that provide abortion services or counseling represents an\u00a0indirect taxpayer subsidy to the \u201cabortion industry<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

As such, despite the multitude of restrictions currently in place, anti-abortion activists promote the idea that Americans are nonetheless being forced to pay for abortions. When the Democratic Party\u00a0declared in 2016<\/a>\u00a0its intention to roll back these restrictions, framing them as unjust barriers to abortion access, anti-abortion activists only ramped up this existing rhetoric.<\/p>\n

In the post-Dobbs world of the 2022 midterms, abortion debates are primarily focused on whether abortion will be legal, but anti-abortion leaders are also highlighting the implications of these laws for voters\u2019 tax dollars.<\/p>\n

This should not be surprising. In the course of\u00a0my research<\/a>\u00a0on debates about taxpayer-funded abortion, I found that this threat has historically been used to motivate and mobilize anti-abortion voters. This message has especially resonated for those conservative evangelical Christians and Catholics who believe that when abortion is funded using their tax dollars, this makes them personally complicit in sin.<\/p>\n

Opposition to public funding<\/strong><\/p>\n

The U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops has long been a central player in advocacy campaigns to \u201cstop taxpayer funding of abortion.\u201d As one\u00a0message<\/a>\u00a0encouraging voters to support this advocacy puts it, \u201cDon\u2019t let our government force you to pay for the deaths of unborn children.\u201d<\/p>\n

This concern resonates for Catholic Republicans, more than 7 in 10 who oppose the use of public funds for abortion, according to an\u00a0analysis<\/a>\u00a0of national survey data that I conducted in 2021 with scholars\u00a0Andrew Whitehead<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Ryan Burge<\/a>. This opposition is even stronger among Republicans who identify as born-again or evangelical Christian \u2013 between 84% and 90%.<\/p>\n

But abortion funding bans also appeal to fiscally conservative voters who oppose welfare spending in general, whether or not they are morally opposed to abortion. Since the 1970s, anti-abortion leaders have argued that \u201cfunding bans protected taxpayers\u2019 wallets as well as their consciences<\/a>,\u201d according to the legal historian\u00a0Mary Ziegler<\/a>. National survey data my colleagues and I analyzed\u00a0suggests<\/a>\u00a0that this argument continues to resonate. Six out of 10 Republicans with no religious affiliation support abortion funding bans; so do between 14% and 17% of Republicans who support legal abortion.<\/p>\n

Opposition to taxpayer-funded abortion,\u00a0even more than abortion itself<\/a>, is a thread connecting religious and fiscal conservatives within the Republican coalition.<\/p>\n

A winning strategy<\/strong><\/p>\n

Campaigns to prevent tax dollars from funding abortion have kept these anti-abortion activists and other Republican voters engaged and mobilized for decades, even when a ban on legal abortion itself seemed unlikely.<\/p>\n

As one leader of an anti-abortion organization told me in a 2021 interview: \u201cUltimately, I think our focus should still remain on criminalizing [abortion]. \u2026 But I think in the meantime we also should oppose the taxpayer funding of it \u2026 just because it\u2019s a winning strategy.\u201d<\/p>\n

This seems no less true post-Dobbs. As the midterms approach, I have found that Republican candidates and movement leaders are continuing to stoke fear about taxpayer-funded abortion in order to mobilize voters, especially religious conservatives.<\/p>\n

Bill codifying federal abortion rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

A major issue energizing voters this cycle is the possibility that Congress might pass a bill\u00a0codifying abortion rights<\/a>. While the primary issue at stake is whether abortions would be legal nationwide, abortion opponents are quick to note that such a bill would also \u201cforce taxpayers to pay for them<\/a>,\u201d as the anti-abortion news website LifeNews.com put it.<\/p>\n

National Right to Life president\u00a0Carol Tobias warned<\/a>\u00a0in the September 2022 issue of the organization\u2019s newsletter that \u201cProponents of the bill claim this bill would codify Roe v Wade. Don\u2019t be fooled \u2013 it goes much, much further.\u201d In particular, she writes, \u201ctax dollars would flow to pay for abortion.\u201d Jeanne F. Mancini, President of March for Life,\u00a0warned<\/a>\u00a0that if this \u201cextreme bill\u201d is passed, it would \u201cforce taxpayers to pay for abortions nationwide \u2014 up until birth.\u201d<\/p>\n

Even in the absence of such a bill, abortion opponents are raising the alarm about existing Biden administration policies that allow public funds to be used for abortion services, like a new Pentagon policy that would \u201cpay for service members to travel for abortion care<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

As reported by\u00a0the Baptist Press<\/a>, the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission raised concerns that \u201cthe interim rule forces taxpayers to fund the taking of preborn human lives.\u201d Meanwhile, the Christian Right organization Concerned Women for America\u00a0warned<\/a>, \u201cA baby has already been killed under this cruel ploy. \u2026 Not only that, but the Administration wants Americans to pay for it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Abortion on state-level ballots<\/strong><\/p>\n

Voters in\u00a0several states<\/a>\u00a0are also directly deciding the fate of their states\u2019 abortion laws in November 2022. In at least two of these states, anti-abortion leaders are highlighting the implications for voters\u2019 tax dollars.<\/p>\n

For example,\u00a0in Kentucky<\/a>, where a near-total abortion ban went into effect shortly after Dobbs, voters will decide whether to amend the state constitution to say, \u201cTo protect human life, nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion.\u201d<\/p>\n

Explaining why voters should vote \u201cYes for Life,\u201d the chair of the campaign supporting the amendment\u00a0led with its implications for taxpayers<\/a>: \u201cThe constitutional amendment is very clear. It protects taxpayer dollars, and it makes sure there is not an interpreted right of abortion in the constitution.\u201d<\/p>\n

In Michigan, where a ballot measure called Proposal 3 would enshrine abortion rights, backlash from anti-abortion activists led by local\u00a0Catholic organizations<\/a>\u00a0prominently features<\/a>\u00a0the claim that \u201cIf passed, Proposal 3 would result in taxpayer-funded abortion.\u201d<\/p>\n

Municipal politics<\/strong><\/p>\n

Cities dedicating public funds to abortion post-Dobbs have also faced scrutiny in the lead-up to the midterms, especially from conservative religious groups.<\/p>\n

In Philadelphia, for example, anti-abortion activists represented by the conservative Catholic\u00a0Thomas More Society<\/a>\u00a0have filed\u00a0suit against city leaders<\/a>\u00a0\u201cfor illegally using taxpayer money to pay for abortions.\u201d Only weeks before the election, the\u00a0Pro-Life Union of Greater Philadelphia<\/a>\u00a0rallied supporters to a hearing on the case, pleading \u201cDon\u2019t let Mayor (Jim) Kenney get away with it!\u201d<\/p>\n

Abortion debates are certainly not only about how abortions will be paid for. But journalists and scholars often pay far too little attention to anti-abortion activists\u2019 persistent focus on the possibility that some abortions will be paid for with their tax dollars. If history and current research is any guide, this threat resonates with a diverse array of Republicans and will be used to mobilize voters in 2022 and beyond.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Gloria Dickson ’24 (CLAS) and Brianna Monte ’24 (NUR), undergraduate research assistants, contributed research to this piece.<\/em><\/p>\n

Originally published in The Conversation.<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Access to abortion is among the top issues on the ballot in several states<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":68,"featured_media":191796,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_crdt_document":"","wds_primary_category":0,"wds_primary_series":0,"wds_primary_attribution":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2226,2431,2235],"tags":[],"magazine-issues":[],"coauthors":[1902],"class_list":["post-191790","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-clas","category-sociology","category-today-homepage"],"pp_statuses_selecting_workflow":false,"pp_workflow_action":"current","pp_status_selection":"publish","acf":[],"publishpress_future_action":{"enabled":false,"date":"2026-05-30 15:54:30","action":"change-status","newStatus":"draft","terms":[],"taxonomy":"category","extraData":[]},"publishpress_future_workflow_manual_trigger":{"enabledWorkflows":[]},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/today.uconn.edu\/wp-rest\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191790","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/today.uconn.edu\/wp-rest\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/today.uconn.edu\/wp-rest\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/today.uconn.edu\/wp-rest\/wp\/v2\/users\/68"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/today.uconn.edu\/wp-rest\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=191790"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/today.uconn.edu\/wp-rest\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191790\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":191944,"href":"https:\/\/today.uconn.edu\/wp-rest\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191790\/revisions\/191944"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/today.uconn.edu\/wp-rest\/wp\/v2\/media\/191796"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/today.uconn.edu\/wp-rest\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191790"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/today.uconn.edu\/wp-rest\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191790"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/today.uconn.edu\/wp-rest\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191790"},{"taxonomy":"magazine-issue","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/today.uconn.edu\/wp-rest\/wp\/v2\/magazine-issues?post=191790"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/today.uconn.edu\/wp-rest\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=191790"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}